Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

For only the second time in California history, a judge in Alameda County voided an election result and called for the election to be re-run, because the e-voting tallies from Diebold machines couldn't be audited. The vote was on a controversial ballot measure addressing the operation of medical marijuana dispensaries, and the result was a close margin. Activists went to court to demand a recount, but after the lawsuit was filed, elections officials sent voting machines back to Diebold. The court found that 96% of the necessary audit information had been erased. The judge ordered the ballot measure to be re-run in the next election.

Unfortunately, the corporations seem to win no matter what you do. Running a ballot measure is incredibly expensive. It costs a lot of money to raise public awareness of an issue and run things like get out the vote measures.

Dragging out a measure with a revote tilts things well in favor of corporations, who have the cash to sustain such an operation. Now the reformers are going to have to fundraise all over again so they can try to put forth an effort in the next election.

Superior Court Judge Winifred Smith also said county officials should pay attorneys' fees and reimburse a medical marijuana group more than $22,000 for the costs it incurred during a disputed recount shortly after the November 2004 election.
At least the medical marijuana group got reimbursed for their attorney fees but... You are right, they now have to campaign to get people out to vote for this again and that equals $$$. It's hard enough to get around all the government disinformation about marijuana,

Reasonable intelligent supporters of marijuana legalization don't think it's harmless, they just think it's less harmful than alcohol, which is legal. I don't know enough say for sure that marijuana is less harmful, but I've never seen any good studies suggesting that it's more harmful. (Certainly the study you link to could have been about alcohol instead, and no one would bat an eye).

But with booze (in the United States alone): The annual average number of deaths for which alcohol poisoning was listed as an underlying cause was 317, with an age-adjusted death rate of 0.11 per 100,000 population. An average of 1,076 additional deaths included alcohol poisoning as a contributing cause, bringing the total number of deaths with any mention of alcohol poisoning to 1,393 per year [findarticles.com] (0.49 per 100,000 population).

Or less harmful than any other prescription drug. I've never smoked marijuana, and I don't really personally approve of people doing it just for recreation (not saying I would stop people from doing it in their homes, I would just wag my finger a bit), but if doctors say it will help their patients, I'd tend to believe them more than I would politicians. Remember, it's still illegal to use a prescription drug if you don't have a prescription for it.

Let's think this one through.-A corporation has a voting machine to sell that runs on Windows software.-Same corporation is selling to government these windows voting machines for a high margin of profit.-Same corporation could easily plug printers into the window software and direct auditable output to printers.-These printers could also be sold to the government for additional thousands of dollars of profit.-Corporation refuses to sell printers.

You'd think that Frito-Lay would be all over this initiative. And Dominos. While it may be hard to re-muster the Stoner Caucus to do this all over again, perhaps the Munchie Cartel can pick up the slack.

California. *sigh*

There's plenty of reasons to re-invent electronically-assisted voting (I like the also-spits-out-paper variation, myself), but it really doesn't help the cause when - to a casual newsreader - an important test case seems to be about weed.

"but it really doesn't help the cause when - to a casual newsreader - an important test case seems to be about weed."

Seems to me a lot of "important test cases" are about social taboos, the woman in the bus, Larry Flynt, Roe vs Wade,....umm I forget but you know fair's fair an all..."casual newsreader" = bubble, bubble, toil and trouble...zzzzzzz.

There's plenty of reasons to re-invent electronically-assisted voting (I like the also-spits-out-paper variation, myself), but it really doesn't help the cause when - to a casual newsreader - an important test case seems to be about weed.

The illegality of Cannabis is one of the greatest fraud of our time. The fact that it is connected to the case of a brave new world of election fraud doesn't diminish anything.

No, I'm pretty sure there's no fraud involved. It actually IS illegal. You have not been defrauded, the laws actually are as written. Or is that not what you actually meant?

So you do think that smoking one marijuhana cigarette will render the smoker hopelessly addicted, and violently insane, and that a rise in its use would lead to a wave of axe murders?Because those are the fraudulent reasons for which it was first made illegal, provisionally, pending a revue. When revues were done, and said that it shouldn't be classified in the same category as heroin, new fraudulent reasons to keep it illegal were invented. When these were scientifically proven false, new fraudulent reaso

I think he meant that the history behind the demonization of weed has been solely to the benefit of big business, the prison industrial complex, and big government, while at the expense of taxpayers and the freedom of many individuals. All with a host of evidence supporting that, in terms of substance with abuse potential, pot should be *way* down on the priority list, if on the list at all.

While all you said is correct, I think you're also giving the government too much credit for being calculating and logical. The government was scared to death of the hippie movement, and went to ban that which was integral to it - a totally irrational response. Dope isn't a threat to any regime - if anything, it's the opposite.

"but it really doesn't help the cause when - to a casual newsreader - an important test case seems to be about weed."

Why not? The reason the election result was contest in court to begin with was because of how close a vote it was, suggesting that "to a casual news reader" it's something contentious and debatable, rather than simply the refuge of scoundrels.

So don't tell me that enjoyment of an 'illegal' substance has somehow turned me into a vegetable and hurt my chances to be a productive person

Gee, it's almost like I didn't say that, isn't it! Because I wasn't talking about YOU. I'm talking about exactly what you KNOW I'm talking about. It's not, in general, a motivating thing to consume. It impacts different people in different ways, much like alchohol. There's ample evidence that, among (especially) kids who smoke it regularly, it can dramatically impa

If you had read the article, you would know that the problem was not the machines.
The city did perform a dump of the data before they returned the machines to Diebold; that was the responsibility of the people in california. Diebold was clearing the machines and when told to stop they did, however only 20 of the 400+ machines had not been cleared.

Maybe I missed something, but it seems to me that this is simply an issue about whether the machines should have a printer attached.

Actually the issue is more one of "why use a machine for something better done by humans".Redoing this election as pen/pencil on (hemp) paper. Would be far more reliable than messing about with any of these machines. Even if they need to employ Canadians to do the job.

The e-voting machines produced by Diebold are deeply flawed in concept.

The "e-voting" concept should be that the computer prints the ballot and that paper ballot is your vote. That ballot lists ONLY the names you chose. You read that and drop it into the ballot box.

The computer counts the number of paper ballots it has printed for each candidate. This number can be released to the news agencies. But the real vote is the paper ballot.

At the end of the day, the names of the voters who used that machine are counted, the paper ballots are counted and both of those are compared to the total number of votes the machine says were cast. If they don't match, there is a problem.

In case of recount, the paper ballots are hand counted.

A random number of machines are checked against the ballots cast at them.

The fact that this is such an obvious solution and that it is so trivial to implement is what makes the chosen convoluted, hackable, no-recount alternative so suspicious. What company would choose (and what government would allow) anything but the easy and elegant solution described if not because they plan to perpetrate election fraud?

I'd be nice to eliminate the source of the problem, rather than have to litigate over the after-effects.

This will be enormously expensive for the state government. You can bet that they'll be seeing what steps they can take to prevent something like this happening again, and switching to a voting machine with an auditable paper trail will probably be one of the possibilities they consider.

They already have - Alameda County stopped using Diebold electronic systems two elections ago.

Last election they used the Sequoia Optec voting system - which uses a mark-sense ballot - for most voters and AVC Edge with VeriVote Printer for vision-impaired voters. Prior to that, they used the old-fashioned mark-sense forms that they use for absentee voters for everybody. Vision-impaired voters could have their ballots read to them or use one of the few remaining Diebold systems in local city halls.

Agreed but it's highly illegal to take all politicians and corperate executives and kill them on pikes in public.

It is only illegal if you don't get *ALL* of them and leave enough behind to carry on the current government. Once you institute a new government, then it is up to that *new* government to determine whether the public pike thing was illegal.

Here's some info on what was actually being voted on, because both the SLashdot and EFF summary treat it as a virtual irrelevance:

The plaintiffs were backers of Measure R, which would have allowed medical marijuana clubs to move into retail areas in Berkeley without public hearings and would have erased limits on the amount of cannabis that patients could have.

According to the county's certified results, the measure lost, 25,167 to 24,976. The initiative lost again in a recount.

I think so far as Slashdot and EFF are concerned, the actual issue is a virtual irrelevance. Whether you're voting on a world-changing issue in the seat of national government or a proclamation to put an extra stop sign on the corner of Turkey and Buzzard streets in Bumsville Idaho, the damn things need to work correctly.

The judge ruled that it did not lose on a recount and that the measure is to go back on the ballot in the next election. It was found that it was impossible to do a recount because the data had been erased.

Shame on Diebold. Why did they ALLOW them to send back the machine before things were taken care of. Why did they ERASE the machines before things were taken care of?Do they have any clue whatsoever about what they are doing? Has the nation not bitched enough about paper trails and how precarious votes are already? It doesn't take much sense to see that you can't take chances like this on a product that isn't proven and is under -heavy- scrutiny.

That's great. If they go to court, that'll probably hold up.It won't do jack shit for their reputation, and that of their machines. All anyone will know is that this election had to be redone, Diebold could have prevented that, and if they'd used paper ballots, it wouldn't have had to be redone.

When creating a new system that -has- to be reliable, it also has to be as fool-proof as possible. Writing blame into the contract is not an acceptable solution. Proper training, supervision, and backup systems w

It won't do jack shit for their reputation, and that of their machines. All anyone will know is that this election had to be redone, Diebold could have prevented that, and if they'd used paper ballots, it wouldn't have had to be redone.

So, you're in favor of the equipment vendor actually having a hand in the policies and practices of running the elections themselves? This is exactly the sort of thing that people have been screaming about - too MUCH influence by the hardware vendor.

Again, shame on Diebold for not having a fscking clue how to make and sell their product.

Except, they made it just fine (it did just what it was asked to do), and they sold it just fine, too. You seem to be suggesting that they should have their own people sitting in election board offices, monitoring the ups and downs of a political process at the local level, and consulting on how the local election board should carry on with the daily activities that they are paid to conduct. Is it your perception that part of Diebold's sales cycle and contract with the entities that use their gear is that they should be on call to direct those districts/states/municipalities/counties in making election process decisions - relative to local statutes and election rules and particular events - about when and how in-machine data should be handled after the election is over? Was that part of the sale - such relatively open-ended consulting services? How many election board meetings should thousands of Diebold employees attend in order to save people from themselves? How many tinfoil-hat conspiracy nuts would then see their involvment in such proceedings to be just another case of elections being 'stolen' by whoever it is they hate that week? Can't have it both ways.

Diebold creates ATMs with paper trails. They don't need to attend every council meeting or voters' rights group association to know that paper trail == good. Additionally even comparing their recount process to a regular paper-vote process would immediately show that there are edge cases where they would be unable to perform a recount but a paper-trail election would be able to.

It seems pretty obvious that having a hard-copy of critical data makes sense for the use cases of voting. It doesn't cost hundred

And they can build voting machines that way too, if their customers ask for them. Again, that's a policy and procurement issue at the election board level. If the election board can't imagine that they want a particular feature, despite years, now, of experience on the part of voters and media coverage galore, then who exactly are you saying should be making those decisions? The equipment vendor? And when the equipment vendor is the one telling election boards what

And they can build voting machines that way too, if their customers ask for them. Again, that's a policy and procurement issue at the election board level.

I agree 100% with that statement. Your original post, however, seemed to imply that the only possible way Diebold could achieve such a request was through a rediculous amount of manhours and attending every single council meeting, which is false.

And when the equipment vendor is the one telling election boards what their policies should be, how do you add

Your original post, however, seemed to imply that the only possible way Diebold could achieve such a request was through a rediculous amount of manhours and attending every single council meeting, which is false.

No, my original post spoke to the issue at hand, here. The people USING THE MACHINES decided it was time to send them back to Diebold, where - as always - they are wiped. The decision about when the local election board, in the context of how well-settled a given election/issue is or is not, cons

So, you're in favor of the equipment vendor actually having a hand in the policies and practices of running the elections themselves?

Whether people like it or not they already are. Personally I think the state should not give up the means of choosing it's representatives to an outside body that is motivated by profit and is governed by little in the way of checks, balances and preventing criminal involvement. The criminal history (including fraud convictions) of some of the people in the Diebold election

From the article it was the responsibility of the place holding the vote to do the dump of the data. Diebold was responible for clearing the machine once it was returned, which they did.

Which in my opinion simply becomes an argument against paperless machines... so that this very brand of finger-pointing can't be used to cover up the stealing -- or even just the screwing up -- of elections.

Shame on Diebold. Why did they ALLOW them to send back the machine before things were taken care of. Why did they ERASE the machines before things were taken care of?

And I assume that you, of course, never wipe any machine you ever touch. Even if it's a production machine that needs to be updated, you keep everything on it forever even when your client - the machine's owner - tells you they have everything they need and that you can wipe and reinstall...

Great, so we'll blame Diebold for the COUNTY elections office's screwup, lack of following their own procedures, and failing to back up equipment. And then for telling Diebold "we're all done, thanks do with them as you will".

Look, I'm not absolving Diebold of any of their other screwups, but this one gets laid squarely at the feet of the elections officials. It was their responsibility to govern, control, and retain the voting records. It was their responsibility to make sure any and all records were

Now instead of politicians kicking stuff around forever so that no action is taken, we're also getting entire results voided until another election cycle comes around to clean it up. That's true progress! A whole new level of inneficiency is being introduced.

Why bother with all that when you can just look at the paper ballots that where printed when...oh wait...there AREN'T ANY!

This is a prime example of why a purely electronic record of the vote is a Bad Idea. If paper ballots had been printed, reviewed by the voter before being deposited in a secure ballot box, and retained for a recount, there would be no issue.

Against the cost of re-running a vote, those printers are starting to look pretty chap, I'd wager.

Why bother with all that when you can just look at the paper ballots that where printed when...oh wait...there AREN'T ANY!

This is a prime example of why a purely electronic record of the vote is a Bad Idea. If paper ballots had been printed, reviewed by the voter before being deposited in a secure ballot box, and retained for a recount, there would be no issue.

Those Diebold motherfuckers make ATM's. ATM's have paper trails. To say that they're incapable of creating paper records for audits or that it's too complicated of a task to solve with their technology is a lie worthy of Republican sympathizers. You think banks would put up with this kind of failure rate, with these inaccuracies? Do you think they'd put up with hackable ATM's?

The people responsible for promoting these failed electronic voting machines are committing treason by attacking the heart and soul

Most industries (finance, law, medicine, accounting...etc) would laugh at the idea of IT systems that have no audit trail. In the worst case scenario, the business could be held liable for damages (sometimes criminally) if certain controls and audit functions are not in place.

The fact that these machines were ordered, designed, and implemented without these controls shows incompetence (or corruption) at every level of the process - from voting administration, to the manufacture, sale, and installation of the equipment.

Those who allowed this to happen, should be the subject of investigation by the Department of Justice. Unfortunately, we may have to wait for another administration to do the right thing.

the business could be held liable for damages (sometimes criminally) if certain controls and audit functions are not in place.

Standard IANAL (which may be obvious enough after I post my question) but couldn't a case against the State of Cali be made for using machines that created this whole mess in the first place? Not sure how Cali. election laws are written. But there has to be a state liability somewhere for making sure elections can be certified.

Seems fairly ridiculous that my company could be charged in court for destruction of evidence if we don't retain e-mails, but a state government can simply let the results of a publi

So Diebold reset the machines without producing a paper trail? Why in the heck would we ever think that would be okay? I say sue Diebold for the entire cost of the new ballot issue, because the county paid for services that have now been invalidated -- and Diebold knew they had problems going into the election.That's like going into surgery with a foot doctor who knows he's not qualified to be part of a heart surgery, methinks.

Change this to a presidential election (circa 2000) and try to recount an unaud

The focus of discussions on e-voting machines always seems to come down to the reliability and accuracy of the audits. What this ignores is the potential for the actual voting records to be altered prior to inclusion in the overall voting record.

The problem with e-voting (in my opinion) is not so much the audit trail, but the fact that e-voting adds unnecessary levels of complexity (and obfuscation and unaccountability) to the voting process. This is the result of government leaders attempting to perform vital civic services on the cheap: why pay poll workers and vote counters, when we can just use machines that do this fast and automagically?

What the use of e-voting machines invites is the ability/potential not only to count votes FASTER, but to do so behind a hardware/software interface, where much malfeasance can be conjured in code and executed on-the-fly, beyond the observational capacity of effectively the entire voting population.

Some things are better dealt with in the analog world. A true and accurate accounting of the will of the people is too important to a democracy for us to cut corners. I think it is worth the cost of paper ballots and carbon-based vote counters to effect the will of the people (however much one may or may not agree with the peoples' will).

That's my two cents on a Thursday before 11am (the time of the morning at which my brain always chugs to life).

It's a service model as opposed to a professional model. Diebold is renting you machines, and it's your responsibility to conduct your election properly and return the machines when you're done. Not when you think you're done, but you're really not. For all I know, there could be auditing facilities (electronic backup, paper backup) that were not used. Diebold chooses to play no part in how the elections are executed with their machines, which, given popular opposition to the voting machine vendor having a

The problem with e-voting (in my opinion) is not so much the audit trail, but the fact that e-voting adds unnecessary levels of complexity (and obfuscation and unaccountability) to the voting process. This is the result of government leaders attempting to perform vital civic services on the cheap: why pay poll workers and vote counters, when we can just use machines that do this fast and automagically?

Is using these machines actually that cheap. You still need plenty of people and you have to pay for the

Those aren't minor advantages, either. Paper ballots have been stolen more than a few times. E-voting machines make it harder for Joe Random to walk off with a bag of yet-to-be-counted paper.

If Joe Random makes off with a ballot box, there is physical evidence of the theft--namely, the missing ballot box sitting in the trunk of his car. He had to physically do something to grab the ballots, which can be witnessed.

If vote-tampering is done electronically, there is no physical evidence to prove it. When you

A judge specifically told the county to retrieve backup data from the machines. The county not only totally ignored her request - they acted in such a way that the data she requested was permenantly destroyed. How is that not contempt of court?

I'm used to government inaction or incompetence affecting elections - it happens all the time - but when government officials purposely act contrary to a judge's order, that brings corruption to an entirely new level.

We have a huge country. No matter how fair and rigorous are our election laws, we're going to have the sampling error that even our basic science cannot avoid. So those election laws should require that elections be won by greater than the margin of error.A 2% victory on one Tuesday in November that governs 2, 4 or 6 years, especially with the power of incumbency multiplying all those terms, is a recipe for an ungovernable populace. A do-over (eliminating minor candidates proven not to be viable to win) wou

Ultimately the most obvious and glaring reason for suspicion regarding the motives of Diebold (and the other black box voting machine companies) is the intentional disregard for profit that would come from having a more expensive auditable printer package.

Considering how simple it would be to include a printer that would produce a record, and how much money they could charge state and local governments for those printers, it is indeed a very curious thing that these companies REFUSE to make that money.

What's the old adage? Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. I'm betting there was a lot more than just the results of this ballot measure stored on the machines. They get 'em back, because the clerk sends it back, they start erasing the machines because...well...it's what they do. Then they get flagged that there's this lawsuit going on, and they shouldn't start erasing them yet. Next thing you know, you go another election.

I have a much easier time believing there was a lot of stupidity on the part of a lot of people than I do believing they were able to successfully orchestrate something that would only end up forcing a re-vote anyway.

I have a much easier time believing there was a lot of stupidity on the part of a lot of people than I do believing they were able to successfully orchestrate something that would only end up forcing a re-vote anyway.

Do you really think it was just stupidity that caused them to design voting machines without a paper trail? You think the people who make our ATMs and slot machines are too incompetent to design an auditable system?

Actually, given how many ATMs I see around that say "diebold" on them (and how many people I see using said ATMs) I think they are clearly able to compete in that sector. And, unlike their paperless voting machines, their ATMs will happily give me a piece of paper telling me how much money is left in my account.

You're absolutely right; OxyContin is illegal without a prescription because it's a Schedule II substance. Marijuana, on the other hand, is on Schedule I, which is where they put drugs that:

# The drug has a high potential for abuse.# The drug has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.# There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug.

(from Wikipedia)

Schedule I drugs are illegal, period, because the government feels that there's no legitimate reason you should be using them. They consider any use of a Schedule I substance a "recreational" use, because in their opinion, you couldn't possibly be using that substance to treat any illness or condition.

Of course, pure THC (aka Marinol) is Schedule II, so you could get a prescription for it if you wanted to. But Marinol is manufactured by the drug companies, whereas you could theoretically grow your own marijuana and cut out the middle-man. Hmmmmm, I'm beginning to see a pattern here...

Schedule I drugs are illegal, period, because the government feels that there's no legitimate reason you should be using them. They consider any use of a Schedule I substance a "recreational" use, because in their opinion, you couldn't possibly be using that substance to treat any illness or condition.

Which brings up the questions:
- What is illegitimate about recreation?and more importantly:
- Where does the government claim to find constitutional authorization to ban particular recreations?

Of course since the RICO laws reestablished the financial incentive structure that drove the Spanish Inquisition you'll have a hard time getting support to strike down the drug laws from those who benefit in government and law enforcement.

True. Regardless of any feelings on the morality of marijuana use or whether it should be legalized, its Schedule I status, putting it on the same level as crack and amphetamines, is simple stupidity. It has well documented uses, is quite safe, and is no where near as addictive as any number of illegal drugs, and may be less so than alcohol. It does have potential for abuse and that is a different question.

The concern is, presumably, that admitting it has uses, given that it is relatively safe (particul

The debate over whether marijuana should be recreationally legal, whether its use commonly endangers others (say, driving under the influence), and what any penalties should be is heavily clouded by this problem. It also makes the whole drug problem harder because it makes the entire drug classification system look partisan and useless, which, to some extent, it is exactly that. It results in a loss of respect for the system.

A lot of loss of respect for this obviously corrupt and dishonest system. Indeed.

Regarding the latest red herring (driving), the studies done on that have hilarious results: Instead of proving that drug-taking while driving increased the risk of accidents, researchers found that the mellowing effects of cannabis made drivers more cautious and so less likely to drive dangerously.

Come on, in classifying marijuana as a schedule I substance, they took the effect of the drug on society as a whole into account. It is the government's duty to do whatever it can to prevent another Cheech & Chong movie being made.

I don't know what part of the world you're in, but people don't kill each other over or from pot here. When I was growing up, the impact of pot as a "drug problem" versus, say, heroin, was not even on the radar. At college, where many drugs were accessible, pot was the absolute least of worries: still illegal, still a problem, but the difference in "effect on society as a whole" between marijuana and amphetamines is near incalculable. Besides that, there are clear criteria for what merits Schedule I statu